{"id":392847,"date":"2026-08-10T12:00:11","date_gmt":"2026-08-10T06:30:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=392847"},"modified":"2026-08-10T12:09:51","modified_gmt":"2026-08-10T06:39:51","slug":"bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/10\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\/","title":{"rendered":"Conscious decision not to contest suit is not \u2018sufficient cause\u2019 for condoning 3650-day delay: Bombay HC"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Bombay High Court:<\/span> In an appeal raising the question whether an ex parte decree passed in a suit seeking compliance with statutory obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963<\/a> (1963 Act) could be reopened after a delay of approximately 3650 days on the ground of a purported bona fide mistake and non-participation in the proceedings, a Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh<\/span>, J., examined whether the trial court had properly exercised its discretion in refusing to condone such delay and ultimately held that a conscious decision not to contest suit is not “sufficient cause” for condoning 3650-day delay and consequently dismissed the appeal from order.<\/p>\n

Also Read<\/span>: Second Marriage Valid Despite Pending Divorce Appeal: Ker HC<\/a><\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

The dispute arose from a suit instituted by a co-operative housing society (Society) in 1999 seeking compliance with statutory obligations under the 1963 Act and seeking conveyance and assignment of rights, title and interest in the land and structure standing thereon. As there was no appearance on behalf of one of the defendants, the trial court passed an ex parte decree on 5 March 2004 in favour of the society. Subsequently, execution proceedings were initiated in 2014. Thereafter, in October 2015, the defendant concerned moved a notice of motion seeking condonation of delay and setting aside of the ex parte decree. The delay sought to be explained was of more than 3650 days.<\/p>\n

Initially, the defendant asserted that the writ of summons and other proceedings had not been served. However, upon the Society producing service records, including acknowledgments, affidavits of service, served copies of interim applications, chamber summons and the writ of summons bearing the receiving stamp and signature of the defendant’s officer, an additional affidavit came to be filed admitting that the summons had in fact been received in December 2003. The defendant then shifted its case and contended that a bona fide mistake had occurred because its officer believed that the dispute was essentially between the Society and the builder and that the defendant had no substantive role to play in the litigation.<\/p>\n

The defendant further argued that it became aware of the decree only upon receiving execution proceedings and urged that a liberal approach be adopted in condoning delay under Section 5<\/a>, Limitation Act, 1963<\/a> (Limitation Act). It was also submitted that the Society stood on leasehold land which was vested in the defendant and there was no renewal of the lease and hence the Society’s prayer for lease did not even survive.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, the Society opposed the application, contending that the delay was wholly unexplained, that service of all relevant proceedings had been duly effected, and that the decision not to contest the suit was a conscious one rather than a bona fide error.<\/p>\n

Analysis<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the central question was whether the trial court had exercised its discretion judicially in refusing to condone the delay of about 3650 days. The Court referred to Sheo Raj Singh<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, (2023) 10 SCC 531<\/a>, wherein it was reiterated that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. It was also emphasised that a court of appeal should not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the courts below.<\/p>\n

Examining the material on record, the Court found that the defendant’s original affidavit contained clear denial to receipt of any papers and proceedings of the suit. However, the plaintiff had produced documentary evidence showing service of notices of motion, chamber summons, hearing intimations and the writ of summons itself, all bearing the defendant’s stamps and acknowledgments. The Court observed that these documents proved that the pleading on oath by the Chief Manager of the defendant that no documents were found in their records was clearly a false statement on oath. The Court highlighted that affidavits constitute solemn statements based on facts personal to the knowledge of the deponent and stating incorrect facts in affidavits undermine the importance of pleadings on oath, which cannot be countenanced.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that, when faced with overwhelming documentary evidence establishing service of the proceedings, the defendant took a complete volte face<\/span> by filing an additional affidavit through the officer who had personally received the writ of summons. The Court observed that the officer expressly admitted that certain statements made in the earlier affidavit were factually incorrect and acknowledged service of the summons in December 2003. The Court highlighted that the relevant records had always remained available with the defendant and that a diligent litigant would have immediately verified the true facts from the officer concerned. The Court opined that the manner of handling the proceedings demonstrated clear negligence and casual approach towards court litigation.<\/p>\n

The Court further noted that the additional affidavit contained an explicit admission that the defendant had made a mistake in not engaging an advocate despite service of the proceedings and that the defendant felt it had no role to play which was a bona fide mistake. However, the Court held that this was not an inadvertent mistake, but a conscious decision not to participate in the litigation for which the defendant had itself to blame. The Court observed that a legal officer could not reasonably conclude that the defendant had no role in the litigation without going through the plaint.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that despite being aware of the proceedings since December 2003, the defendant did not even bother to find out the fate of the proceedings. The Court opined that even a party claiming to be a formal party to litigation is expected to remain vigilant. The Court highlighted that the defendant maintained a full-fledged legal department and therefore could not be permitted to shrug off the consequence of its decision consciously taken.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that the trial court rightly concluded that the defendant’s conduct demonstrated negligence and omission on his part rather than bona fide error. The Court observed that for condoning the delay, the expression “sufficient cause” could not be casually interpreted to accept the defendant’s apology resulting in injustice to the Society which had been fighting the litigation since 1999. The Court highlighted that the words “sufficient cause” under Section 5<\/a>, Limitation Act<\/a> must receive a liberal construction, but the same should not result in injustice to a party who has succeeded in the suit and is awaiting the fruits of its decree. It is only a diligent litigant who needs to be protected, not a litigant who is guilty of negligence and omission.<\/p>\n

The Court referred to Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd.<\/span> v. Commr. (Admn.)<\/span>, (2010) 4 SCC 728<\/a>, where it was held that<\/p>\n

“… a person who approaches the court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material\/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. … If he is found guilty of concealment of material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice, the court not only has the right but a duty to deny relief to such person.”<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the change of stand by the defendant after being confronted with the documents evidencing service of the papers and proceedings, constituted suppression of facts while filing the notice of motion, and therefore, even on that count, the defendant was disentitled to any relief.<\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Bom HC on Revisional authority’s power to reject condonation of delay<\/a><\/p>\n

Decision<\/p>\n

Accordingly, while dismissing the appeal from order, the Court held that the mistake claimed by the defendant was a conscious decision not to contest the proceedings and did not constitute a “sufficient cause” for the delay of almost 3650 days. Additionally, the Court, despite the Society’s opposition, allowed the defendant’s request for extension of interim relief for further period of 8 weeks as the interim order was operating in its favour since 2022.<\/p>\n

[National Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Amarchand Mansion Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.<\/span>, Appeal from Order No. 643 of 2022, decided on 3-8-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Appellant:<\/span> V.Y. Sanglikar, Advocate.<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> Aditya Mehta a\/w Chaitra Rao, Advocates.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Bombay High Court held that a litigant cannot remain absent from proceedings for years and later seek indulgence on the ground of a supposed bona fide misunderstanding.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67538,"featured_media":392861,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2518,2552,111910,111907,66917,26944,111908,111909,32319],"class_list":["post-392847","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-Condonation_of_delay","tag-delay-of-3650-days","tag-ex-parte-decree","tag-justice-sharmila-u-deshmukh","tag-order-9-rule-13-cpc","tag-section-5-limitation-act-1963","tag-setting-aside-ex-parte-decree","tag-sufficient-cause"],"yoast_head":"\nBom HC: Conscious Non-Participation Isn't 'Sufficient Cause' for 3650-Day Delay| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Bombay High Court holds that a conscious decision not to contest proceedings despite service of summons cannot constitute sufficient cause for condoning a delay of about 3650 days in seeking to set aside an ex parte decree.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/10\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Conscious decision not to contest suit is not \u2018sufficient cause\u2019 for condoning 3650-day delay: Bombay HC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court holds that a conscious decision not to contest proceedings despite service of summons cannot constitute sufficient cause for condoning a delay of about 3650 days in seeking to set aside an ex parte decree.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/10\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-10T06:30:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-08-10T06:39:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sunaina\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Conscious decision not to contest suit is not \u2018sufficient cause\u2019 for condoning 3650-day delay: Bombay HC\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sunaina\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/10\\\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/10\\\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Sunaina\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/34835827e9e9e8def4f8c83ccef5727f\"},\"headline\":\"Conscious decision not to contest suit is not \u2018sufficient cause\u2019 for condoning 3650-day delay: Bombay HC\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-10T06:30:11+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-10T06:39:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/10\\\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1377,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/10\\\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"Condonation of delay\",\"delay of 3650 days\",\"ex parte decree\",\"Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh\",\"Order 9 Rule 13 CPC\",\"Section 5 Limitation Act 1963\",\"setting aside ex parte decree\",\"Sufficient Cause\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/10\\\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/10\\\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/10\\\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\\\/\",\"name\":\"Bom HC: Conscious Non-Participation Isn't 'Sufficient Cause' for 3650-Day Delay| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/10\\\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/10\\\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-10T06:30:11+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-10T06:39:51+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/34835827e9e9e8def4f8c83ccef5727f\"},\"description\":\"Bombay High Court holds that a conscious decision not to contest proceedings despite service of summons cannot constitute sufficient cause for condoning a delay of about 3650 days in seeking to set aside an ex parte decree.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/10\\\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/10\\\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/10\\\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"conscious decision not to contest suit not sufficient cause\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/10\\\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Conscious decision not to contest suit is not \u2018sufficient cause\u2019 for condoning 3650-day delay: Bombay HC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/34835827e9e9e8def4f8c83ccef5727f\",\"name\":\"Sunaina\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/3a354bf6ec74d2631ada87f05d4d0974c39ba4fa4100c0cd4972b767e8824247?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/3a354bf6ec74d2631ada87f05d4d0974c39ba4fa4100c0cd4972b767e8824247?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/3a354bf6ec74d2631ada87f05d4d0974c39ba4fa4100c0cd4972b767e8824247?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sunaina\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/sunaina\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bom HC: Conscious Non-Participation Isn't 'Sufficient Cause' for 3650-Day Delay| SCC Times","description":"Bombay High Court holds that a conscious decision not to contest proceedings despite service of summons cannot constitute sufficient cause for condoning a delay of about 3650 days in seeking to set aside an ex parte decree.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/10\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Conscious decision not to contest suit is not \u2018sufficient cause\u2019 for condoning 3650-day delay: Bombay HC","og_description":"Bombay High Court holds that a conscious decision not to contest proceedings despite service of summons cannot constitute sufficient cause for condoning a delay of about 3650 days in seeking to set aside an ex parte decree.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/10\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-08-10T06:30:11+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-08-10T06:39:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sunaina","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Conscious decision not to contest suit is not \u2018sufficient cause\u2019 for condoning 3650-day delay: Bombay HC","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sunaina","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/10\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/10\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\/"},"author":{"name":"Sunaina","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/34835827e9e9e8def4f8c83ccef5727f"},"headline":"Conscious decision not to contest suit is not \u2018sufficient cause\u2019 for condoning 3650-day delay: Bombay HC","datePublished":"2026-08-10T06:30:11+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-10T06:39:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/10\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\/"},"wordCount":1377,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/10\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause.webp","keywords":["Bombay High Court","Condonation of delay","delay of 3650 days","ex parte decree","Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh","Order 9 Rule 13 CPC","Section 5 Limitation Act 1963","setting aside ex parte decree","Sufficient Cause"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/10\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/10\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/10\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\/","name":"Bom HC: Conscious Non-Participation Isn't 'Sufficient Cause' for 3650-Day Delay| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/10\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/10\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause.webp","datePublished":"2026-08-10T06:30:11+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-10T06:39:51+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/34835827e9e9e8def4f8c83ccef5727f"},"description":"Bombay High Court holds that a conscious decision not to contest proceedings despite service of summons cannot constitute sufficient cause for condoning a delay of about 3650 days in seeking to set aside an ex parte decree.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/10\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/10\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/10\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"conscious decision not to contest suit not sufficient cause"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/10\/bom-hc-conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause-3650-day-delay\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Conscious decision not to contest suit is not \u2018sufficient cause\u2019 for condoning 3650-day delay: Bombay HC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/34835827e9e9e8def4f8c83ccef5727f","name":"Sunaina","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3a354bf6ec74d2631ada87f05d4d0974c39ba4fa4100c0cd4972b767e8824247?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3a354bf6ec74d2631ada87f05d4d0974c39ba4fa4100c0cd4972b767e8824247?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3a354bf6ec74d2631ada87f05d4d0974c39ba4fa4100c0cd4972b767e8824247?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sunaina"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/sunaina\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/conscious-decision-not-to-contest-suit-not-sufficient-cause.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/392847","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67538"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=392847"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/392847\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":392852,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/392847\/revisions\/392852"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/392861"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=392847"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=392847"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=392847"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}